> In a high court ruling, Mrs Justice Knowles said details of the case should be disclosed to the organisation, overturning a decision by a family court judge.
>She also issued guidance that could make it harder for those working with children and vulnerable people to hide findings of abuse made against them from their regulatory bodies.
>Judge Farooq Ahmed had found the social worker fractured his ex-partner’s hand “causing lasting disability” and used his temper to “frighten and control her”.
>He also found the man, who worked with vulnerable adults, was verbally abusive in front of the couple’s child – named in court as “Z” – and upset them by hitting the family dog.
>But Ahmed refused an application by SWE to disclose his judgment, claiming it would affect Z’s welfare. He accepted the father’s position that if he were to be suspended or lose his job it would affect the child’s maintenance.
>It was left to Z’s mother to appeal against the decision after the regulatory body failed to challenge it.
>She told the Guardian: “This was not my fight to take on. I felt like a turkey voting for Christmas because my financial circumstances could be impacted if my ex loses his job. But it was a vital matter of public protection.
>“When findings of abuse are made behind closed doors in private family courts they are not disclosed to the perpetrator’s professional body without permission of the court. So guidance from Knowles is really crucial.”
>The principle, she said, was not just about social workers but all those in public safeguarding roles such as the police, teachers and health professionals.
>She said: “When I first heard the news about the police officer David Carrick my blood ran cold because I realised that him, or someone like him, could have findings of domestic abuse made against them in the family court – and those findings may not be disclosed to the appropriate regulatory body. That is why this is so important.”
>But Ahmed refused an application by SWE to disclose his judgment, claiming it would affect Z’s welfare. He accepted the father’s position that if he were to be suspended or lose his job it would affect the child’s maintenance.
That’s ridiculous. Someone like that should not be allowed to work with vulnerable people. He can get a job in a warehouse if he needs to pay maintenance.
Disgusted by this abusive man, of course, but more pressing is my concern that a family court judge deemed it perfectly acceptable to not pass that information on to an employer that allows him to work with vulnerable people.
The burden taken on by the mother was huge but she’s done an incredible thing, she should feel very proud of herself for protecting others at risk from him.
The judge sounds like a dumb fuck. Guessing nothing will happen to him to sort out his shit.
Just who you want looking after vulnerable people. Anyone who thought that is acceptable has no business making decisions as important as this. It might be bad for the child maintenance but that should not come ahead of the welfare of those the man would be looking after.
5 comments
> In a high court ruling, Mrs Justice Knowles said details of the case should be disclosed to the organisation, overturning a decision by a family court judge.
>She also issued guidance that could make it harder for those working with children and vulnerable people to hide findings of abuse made against them from their regulatory bodies.
>Judge Farooq Ahmed had found the social worker fractured his ex-partner’s hand “causing lasting disability” and used his temper to “frighten and control her”.
>He also found the man, who worked with vulnerable adults, was verbally abusive in front of the couple’s child – named in court as “Z” – and upset them by hitting the family dog.
>But Ahmed refused an application by SWE to disclose his judgment, claiming it would affect Z’s welfare. He accepted the father’s position that if he were to be suspended or lose his job it would affect the child’s maintenance.
>It was left to Z’s mother to appeal against the decision after the regulatory body failed to challenge it.
>She told the Guardian: “This was not my fight to take on. I felt like a turkey voting for Christmas because my financial circumstances could be impacted if my ex loses his job. But it was a vital matter of public protection.
>“When findings of abuse are made behind closed doors in private family courts they are not disclosed to the perpetrator’s professional body without permission of the court. So guidance from Knowles is really crucial.”
>The principle, she said, was not just about social workers but all those in public safeguarding roles such as the police, teachers and health professionals.
>She said: “When I first heard the news about the police officer David Carrick my blood ran cold because I realised that him, or someone like him, could have findings of domestic abuse made against them in the family court – and those findings may not be disclosed to the appropriate regulatory body. That is why this is so important.”
>But Ahmed refused an application by SWE to disclose his judgment, claiming it would affect Z’s welfare. He accepted the father’s position that if he were to be suspended or lose his job it would affect the child’s maintenance.
That’s ridiculous. Someone like that should not be allowed to work with vulnerable people. He can get a job in a warehouse if he needs to pay maintenance.
>The appeal raises wider questions about the family court’s responsibility to disclose findings of domestic abuse to regulatory bodies overseeing professions such as teachers, health professionals and police officers. ([source](https://www.thejusticegap.com/family-judge-wrong-not-to-disclose-social-workers-abuse-to-regulatory-body/))
Disgusted by this abusive man, of course, but more pressing is my concern that a family court judge deemed it perfectly acceptable to not pass that information on to an employer that allows him to work with vulnerable people.
The burden taken on by the mother was huge but she’s done an incredible thing, she should feel very proud of herself for protecting others at risk from him.
The judge sounds like a dumb fuck. Guessing nothing will happen to him to sort out his shit.
Just who you want looking after vulnerable people. Anyone who thought that is acceptable has no business making decisions as important as this. It might be bad for the child maintenance but that should not come ahead of the welfare of those the man would be looking after.